4 ms·

I think 3 things have a massive benefit to reducing stagnation and decline of equality; 1) Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate it to even the p

I think 3 things have a massive benefit to reducing stagnation and decline of equality; 1) Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate it to even the playing field with good education opportunities in all regions and similar social programs to separate birth to income. Its always going to be there but reducing this should be a goal. 2) Focusing on small business vs large corporate. Literally making policy that favours smaller companies be it lower regulation, taxes etc. But you have to actively help the up and comers to disrupt the market vs protect large interests. 3) Break monopolistic behaviour. We really need to reduce the acquisition takeover culture. And not just mega corp but so often to see things like all the Dentists in a small city are owned by one family type thing. Im not sure the way to deal with this but possibly proportional asset taxes? Generally I think governments role is to run the nation for the benefit of the people and economic efficiency is the the be all and end all of achieving this.

kortilla 6y ago
> 1) Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate it to even the playing field with good education opportunities in all regions and similar social programs to separate birth to income. Its always going to be there but reducing this should be a goal. Most of the billionaires are first generation and waiting for the rich to die to spread wealth is not going to help anything economically (estate tax is a drop in the bucket compared to the GDP itself just growing a couple of percent). > 2) Focusing on small business vs large corporate. Literally making policy that favours smaller companies be it lower regulation, taxes etc. But you have to actively help the up and comers to disrupt the market vs protect large interests. This will make it very difficult to compete globally in the capital intensive industries. Would this be coupled with nationalistic trade policies as well?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Big business drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. Squelching big business will doom the economy to mediocrity.
  - Gustomaximus 6y ago
    Squelching small business will also doom the economy to mediocrity. And 'within reason' if government focuses on making an environment for small business to thrive, this will often help big business too. But the same is not true if the focus is reversed.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  > Most of the billionaires are first generation This is a quirk of the tech boom and we are in a blip in history. Also when you say 'most' its a slim majority, about 55% which is fair to recognise. And I agree on its own it wont help economically, but this is one tool to help this balance, these things are done in part, not one variable solves all which also needs to be recognised as will it have some positive effect, rather than does it fix the entire issue, if you believe dynastic wealth and intergenerational inequality is in fact an issue as many wouldn't. > This will make it very difficult to compete globally in the capital intensive industries. While there is likely some edge cases, helping small business and putting focus there doesn't have to be against big business. There is good and bad options within this statements. Monopolistic behaviours aside when I say focus on small business I dont mean restrict larger business. But you can look at rules that level the playing field. For example you could ensure distributors have open order systems so Walmart cant get goods at half the price anyone else can. Or make tax forms efficient so that 10 man business doesn't need a full time accountant priced into their small operation type changes. This wont effect the capital intensive industries + will also benefit big business, however the benefit will be felt more for smaller operations.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    > so Walmart cant get goods at half the price anyone else can. But that in itself is already restrictive. As a manufacturer I would rather give one giant customer 100,000 units than 10,000 customers 100 units in a huge range of products. The overhead of dealing with different customers, different shipping, different receiving is a big pain in the ass. This is why there is a such a thing as volume discounts. So you’ve forced the local manufacturer to have an artificially high price for high volume customers and Walmart just goes to a Chinese manufacturer. See the problem here?
piokoch 6y ago
"Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate" I think this could work in XIX century (maybe at the beginning of the XX century). Right now it would only mean that really reach people would invest elsewhere (they have means to do this) and estate tax would be paid by the middle class and poor people (especially the latter, since they have to rent flats very often, and this tax would be just added to their rent by the estate owner).
- triceratops 6y ago
  "Estate tax" isn't a tax on real-estate or land. It's a tax on inheritances.
  - pas 6y ago
    Then rich folks will put family into high income positions into their own company to transfer wealth. Yes, sure ultimately if they want to transfer special voting shares that might seem like a problem, but with some foresight I bet that that can be worked around easily too, especially if the family has decades to prepare an do it.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > Then rich folks will put family into high income positions into their own company to transfer wealth. The recipients of those jobs would pay income tax though. And in most jurisdictions earned income is taxed way higher than dividends or capital gains.
pas 6y ago
One of the big problems with education is that too much is expected of the formal education system and too little on the job training happens in middle-income jobs.

kortilla 6y ago

> 1) Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate it to even the playing field with good education opportunities in all regions and similar social programs to separate birth to income. Its always going to be there but reducing this should be a goal. Most of the billionaires are first generation and waiting for the rich to die to spread wealth is not going to help anything economically (estate tax is a drop in the bucket compared to the GDP itself just growing a couple of percent). > 2) Focusing on small business vs large corporate. Literally making policy that favours smaller companies be it lower regulation, taxes etc. But you have to actively help the up and comers to disrupt the market vs protect large interests. This will make it very difficult to compete globally in the capital intensive industries. Would this be coupled with nationalistic trade policies as well?

WalterBright 6y ago
Big business drives the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. Squelching big business will doom the economy to mediocrity.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  Squelching small business will also doom the economy to mediocrity. And 'within reason' if government focuses on making an environment for small business to thrive, this will often help big business too. But the same is not true if the focus is reversed.
Gustomaximus 6y ago
> Most of the billionaires are first generation This is a quirk of the tech boom and we are in a blip in history. Also when you say 'most' its a slim majority, about 55% which is fair to recognise. And I agree on its own it wont help economically, but this is one tool to help this balance, these things are done in part, not one variable solves all which also needs to be recognised as will it have some positive effect, rather than does it fix the entire issue, if you believe dynastic wealth and intergenerational inequality is in fact an issue as many wouldn't. > This will make it very difficult to compete globally in the capital intensive industries. While there is likely some edge cases, helping small business and putting focus there doesn't have to be against big business. There is good and bad options within this statements. Monopolistic behaviours aside when I say focus on small business I dont mean restrict larger business. But you can look at rules that level the playing field. For example you could ensure distributors have open order systems so Walmart cant get goods at half the price anyone else can. Or make tax forms efficient so that 10 man business doesn't need a full time accountant priced into their small operation type changes. This wont effect the capital intensive industries + will also benefit big business, however the benefit will be felt more for smaller operations.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > so Walmart cant get goods at half the price anyone else can. But that in itself is already restrictive. As a manufacturer I would rather give one giant customer 100,000 units than 10,000 customers 100 units in a huge range of products. The overhead of dealing with different customers, different shipping, different receiving is a big pain in the ass. This is why there is a such a thing as volume discounts. So you’ve forced the local manufacturer to have an artificially high price for high volume customers and Walmart just goes to a Chinese manufacturer. See the problem here?

piokoch 6y ago

"Estate tax - reduce dynastic wealth and recirculate" I think this could work in XIX century (maybe at the beginning of the XX century). Right now it would only mean that really reach people would invest elsewhere (they have means to do this) and estate tax would be paid by the middle class and poor people (especially the latter, since they have to rent flats very often, and this tax would be just added to their rent by the estate owner).

triceratops 6y ago
"Estate tax" isn't a tax on real-estate or land. It's a tax on inheritances.
- pas 6y ago
  Then rich folks will put family into high income positions into their own company to transfer wealth. Yes, sure ultimately if they want to transfer special voting shares that might seem like a problem, but with some foresight I bet that that can be worked around easily too, especially if the family has decades to prepare an do it.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > Then rich folks will put family into high income positions into their own company to transfer wealth. The recipients of those jobs would pay income tax though. And in most jurisdictions earned income is taxed way higher than dividends or capital gains.

pas 6y ago

One of the big problems with education is that too much is expected of the formal education system and too little on the job training happens in middle-income jobs.